RE: yes and no

I haven't had time to read a word of it but I just keep putting the whole
darn thread into the GUM folder for later reading or deleting. There is a
whole 'nother issue on other forums about ink, and I'm still working on a
2006 calendar. Darn : )

Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotography.com
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:34 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: yes and no
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Tom Sobota wrote:
>
> >.... I can understand
> > that this process will be extremely boring for someone, but in that
> case, as
> > Katharine says, just skip the thread.
>
> Yes and no, Tom. I've noticed two things you may have missed.
>
> 1. There hasn't been a serious OTHER thread on the list for quite a
> while... maybe that's static electricity, or more likely "inversion"
> sucking up all the air.
>
> 2. When a thread gets tiresome to others, requests to take it offlist
> arise. (Tho I don't remember another of such duration & volume by so few.)
>
> I think we all know better than to tangle with Katharine, and I myself
> have pretty much given up on following -- or caring about -- this thread.
> But I don't think Don deserves to be demonized for saying what probably
> many, if not the majority of folks were thinking.
>
> Which brings me to a 3rd thing -- the meaning of words (always important,
> in private AND public life). Katharine protests a "diatribe" -- from Don?
> Webster defines a "diatribe" as "bitter and abusive speech." What Don said
> was something like, hey enough already. (But see first 11 words, paragraph
> above.)
>
> The usual criterion in matters like this, BTW, is: "Is this good for the
> list?" IMO it depends -- within reason it's probably harmless -- but that
> line may be crossed. I don't recall in probably 12 years such extreme
> expatiation by so few on a matter so arcane.
>
> It seems in any event that with, if memory serves, only 4 folks still
> involved, this thread could easily be taken offlist without hard feelings,
> and, if conclusions are reached, they could be shared in triumph.
>
> I think I also need to add for the benefit of those frightened away from
> gum printing by Katharine's statement that:
>
> QUOTE: Anything that's ever said about gum here, is nothing but
> conjecture based on empirical observation. If we prohibited conjecture
> based on empirical observation, there wouldn't be anything left that
> anyone could say about gum printing, period. END QUOTE
>
> That statement is of course absurd on its face. Tho it may apply to the
> tonal inversion story, it hardly applies elsewhere (except possibly to
> Paul Anderson's "gum-pigment ratio test"). There's no "prohibition" of
> conjecture; there's just fatigue with its excess, while I myself have
> found empirical observation not only sufficient but crucial, the sine qua
> non of gum printing -- in which most facts are observable, testable,
> demonstrable, repeatable, guide and proof. (Although variables tests,
> changing only one variable at a time, are too often honored in the
> breach-- & essential.)
>
> In truth, the basics of gum are quite simple. Yes, speculation &
> investigation are part of the challenge -- but there can also be too much
> of a (formerly) good thing, and to be accused of a "diatribe" for saying,
> "um, enough" is -- too much.
>
> (And now, I suppose, the onslaught.)
>
> Judy
Received on Mon Jan 30 23:12:49 2006